The war in Iraq...?

Question

OK a few questions... you don't need to anwer them all
1) is there still the threat of terroism and WMDs in Iraq that we are fighting for, or is the "goal" just to get a democracy now...in other words, if we were to pull out, what danger would we be in from iraq?
2) Wtih the US/UN troops still fighting there, what is their current state of government?
3)was there any truth behind the "dangers of terrorism and WMD" excuse for going to iraq?
4) in simple words, what are the two sides of the civil war in iraq?

please if I could have unbiased answers that would be great... add your opinion if you'd like but it would be great if you could first give me an answer that is all fact
Thanks

Answer 1

An answer that is all fact, that may be tough. Depending on who and what you are listening to there are all kinds of facts and opinion. Truth, whose truth, I don't think anyone knows the truth or willing to tell it. I really don't know why we are there, they say for freedom but whose, our freedom which is being striped away by our president, congress and the money people who pull their strings. Terrorism is just a word to keep us in fear, I think the real terrorist is our own government. I believe we need to pull out and take care of #1 (USA) first.

Answer 2

1) If the US were to pull out now there most likely would not be a threat from Iraq to us. As in they won't bomb us from Baghdad. However if we stay we certainly are/have been targets. See the news.
2) First I don't think the UN has any troops currently there. Are you asking who governs the troops or who governs Iraq? The countries that send/sent the troops (mainly the US) have responsibility for their own troops. There is a government in Iraq made up of Iraqis but influenced by the US and currently being challenged by other Iraqis, it is in shambles pretty much.
3) Iraq had WMD in the 1980s (when we supported Saddam) and also in the early 1990s. He did not have any at the time of the invasion and the evidence that said he did was bad intel.
4) It's more than two sides. There are many different actors in the struggle. There are Kurds, ethnic non-Arabs, in the North who want their own state. There are Sunnis and Shi'(different religious sects) who have been pitted against each other by the British when the colonized and Saddam when he came to power. There is a significant history there. Currently they are all struggling for power and oil revenue.

Answer 3

1. Yes there is still a threat of terrorism and WMDs in Iraq. Are we really to believe that Saddam Hussein used his ENTIRE ARSENOL on his own people? Some say many WMDs were transferred to Syria before the US invasion and some say many are buried in the desert. Ever look for anything in a desert? You can hide a lot of stuff in the desert. If we were to pull out, the biggest threat is the insurgents getting control of the government and the threat of the Iraqi government aligning with Syria or Iran. The government needs to be stable and they have to be able to defend their own borders from insurgency (not sure we are the ones to help there since we have no control of our own borders) and the law enforcement have to be able to handle the criminal actions from the various religious factions (what some are calling the civil war).

2. The Iraqi Government is a democratically elected government, elected by the citizens of Iraq. The US is there as government advisors and trainers to help them establish the means for their own defense and law enforcement and to combat the terrorists and insurgents that are trying to disrupt the democratic government. The "War" was over when Saddam Hussein was removed from power and his Bathe Party and Republican Guard were defeated. The US is now conducting a "police action" as the Iraqis don't yet have the ability to combat the insurgents and civil disobedience in their country without coalition forces assistance.

3. For the dangers of terrorism and WMDs first I ask if you believe that Saddam Hussein used all his arsenal on his own people or that the single operation under Clinton (Operation Desert Fox) destroyed the entire technology base to produce those weapons? Personally, I don't believe either of those, so yes, I believe the WMD threat was real. The terrorism threat is basically due to the belief that Saddam Husseim would proliferate the weapons and technology of his WMD weapons programs to terrorist organizations that were to target the US. Also, in my opinion, a plausable scenario, so yes the trerrorist threat was also very real.

4. Simple words for "the sides of the civil war" is actually three sides a. The Shiites; b. The Sunnis; c. The Kurds.

Answer 4

1) The greatest threat to the United States would be the entrenchment of terrorist organizations in Iraq leading to future attacks. The greatest threat to the region would be civil war escalating into a bigger regional conflict (Such as Iran attaacking Saudi Arabia or Israel.)

2) There are no United Nations troops in Iraq (or darn few of them). The sad state of the Iraqi government is irrelevant to that condition. The Sunnis have all but abandoned participation in the fledgling Iraqi government.

3) Yes, there was *some* truth to the WMD issue...more in the future danger, it appears, than an imminent threat. There were relatively small caches of WMDs found...specifically, missiles with Sarin-gas warheads. There was also much evidence found to point to Saddam's intent to develop WMDs...but that even his own scientists were lying to him about the progress being made; which is another factor in the faulty intlelligence; much of Saddam's "bluster" was taken seriously.

4) The two sides are Sunni vs Shia. Sunni are "traditional" Muslims who believe in strict interpretation of the Koran, continued subjugation of women, etc. Frightenly, perhaps, the Shia are the more "progressive" Muslims who believe that the Koran should be interpreted with the modern world in mind. Really, the best analogy to the conflict within Islam is the Christian Reformation...which tore asunder Catholics and Protestants. That too was a bloody time of history.

Answer 5

1. It's not been about WMD's for a couple years now. It's been about stabilizing a democracy in the middle east and fighting the terrorist insurgents that are flowing into Iraq.

We could pull out of Iraq and it would be of little actual consequence to us...other than the perception that we have been defeated. That could be good for terrorist morale.

2. The government in Iraq does not do very much for itself. The only positive thing I'm aware of is...they are elected at least. The citizens also participated in Democracy, at great personal risk.

3. If you are concerned about nerve gas, then there was reason for concern. There was a mild terrorist connection between al Qaeda and Hussein, but it may have been possible to strike that from the air or with special forces.

4. In simple words, there seems to be three sects in Iraq. They seem to have been disliking each other for a long time. Sunni's, Shiites, and Kurds. Seems like they fight about religion, land, and power...the usual stuff.

Answer 6

1.) Yes, even though we (the American people) don't want to believe, the threat of terrorism is STILL THERE.

2.) According to W. Bush, the senate in Iraq has to meet 11
of 18 benchmarks BEFORE they will be a stable government. According to me, they have no government standards. It's free range. (Oh, and by the way, the benchmarks weren't even set up by the Iraqi senate. W. Bush and OUR Congress did the work for them. That's how bad it's getting to be. They need our lazy, good-for-nothing president to set up benchmarks that THEY CAN'T even complete. How sad is that?)

3.) Dangers of terrorism threats: YES. WMDs: NO.

4.) Well, I could go on and on about the Sunnis (pronounced: sOOn-nEEs) and the Shiites (pronounced: shEE-ah or shEE-ites,) but I prefer not to. They have their individual problems that are none of our (meaning the American people's) business. That is something W. Bush cannot settle, even if he attempts to. They have had issues since before we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan that they need to sort out on their own.

Answer 7

do your own homework Condi!
who the heck am i to say
1. no wmd, terrorists, the threat is greater than before 9/11 because everyone hates us now but most don't have reasources and will not bother to follow anyone home. It has been a big boon to the al qaeda cause though. No danger from iraq directly, just lowered respect and status which i don't think even "winning" can recover.
2. it's a puppet govt i guess, not sure of the question. does what we want and is held up by us.
3. no
4. sunni and shia.... religious sects, from what they tell me, i have no idea what the true dynamic is or why it is. it wasn't a civil war before we came so i'm not sure if that is the proper word. There's at least a tri partition, if other countries are involved as suggested it's deeper still.

Answer 8

1) Was not a threat of WMD or terrorism prior to the war, but now there is.

2) No UN troops are there, only US and allies (mostly US). Current head of state in Iraq wants us out. Parliament is just returning from a month-long vacation.

3) No.

4) There are more than two sides, but you can start with Sunni v. Shia.

Answer 9

against the Iraq conflict yet provided that all of us started it we ought to end it. needless to say there is the possibility that with Saddam in potential we'd have ultimately had to flow to conflict in some unspecified time interior the destiny. Who is familiar with? I purely think of the money could have been greater effective spent interior the USA on relatives capability progression. strategies you, i'm not some fool who's blindly anti-conflict or anti-protection stress. till everybody interior the international ceases to be aggressive there'll consistently be a decide for for a protection stress. as long as international places compete for land and components there'll be conflict. people who marketing campaign to end all wars or get rid of the protection stress stay in a dreamworld.

Answer 10

1) there is a democratic government in the process of being set up.
2) see number 1.
3) The world agreed Saddam had chemical weapons and Saddam holds the record for the most people KILLED in a chemical weapons attack.
4) One side is the side that WAS in charge during the mass murders under Saddam the other side was the victims under Saddam.